1

Meeting of the Group of Experts “Dialogue on Shared Values”Stockholm, 11 March 2009

Presentation by
Mrs Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni
Director General of Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport
and Coordinator for Intercultural Dialogue
of the Council of Europe

Dear Minister,

Distinguished members of the group of experts,

I thank you wholeheartedly for your kind invitation to address this meeting and to contribute — from a European perspective — to your debate on the role of shared values in a modern society, to present the general messages contained in the “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue” and to share with you some considerations regarding the follow-up.

[Introduction to the concept of intercultural dialogue]

Intercultural dialogue is a necessity of our times. More than ever, talking and co-operating across cultural, ethnic, religious, linguistic and national dividing lines is imperative to secure cohesion and to prevent conflict.

Events of recent years have brought this home to Europe’s political leaders. The wars of the Yugoslav succession were a traumatic shock. ‘September 11’ and the bombs in Madrid and London raised the question whether we re already in the middle of an unavoidable clash of civilisations, as some would like us to believe. The killing of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh and the Danish cartoons affair raised the question of how members of different communities relate to one another.

It was for these reasons, and some more besides, that in 2005 the Heads of State and Government of the then 46 member states of the Council of Europe, at their Warsaw Summit, decided to appoint a Co-ordinator for intercultural dialogue. Later that year, the culture ministers called for the preparation of a “White Paper” to provide guidance on policy and good practice in this area.

The Council of Europe was well placed to take this initiative. Founded in 1949 in the aftermath of the ravaging of the continent by aggressive nationalism, anti-Semitism and totalitarianism, the Council of Europe has embodied from the outset the universal norms of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. In the following decades, the Council of Europe has developed in particular the meaning of human rights. We have adopted a raft of conventions and declarations, most notably of course the European Convention on Human Rights. Whereas in the past, Europeans enjoyed rights only as national citizens, these provisions now add up to what has been called a ius humanitatis, meaning that all those who reside in Europe are entitled to a fundamental recognition of their individual human dignity, and must recognise the equal dignity of others. The European Court of Human Rights has developed extensive jurisprudence on what this means in real-life situations.

[The White Paper consultations]

To prepare the White Paper, the Council of Europe embarked on a protracted consultation with member states, local authorities, non-governmental associations, religious communities, media professionals, experts and practitioners, along with the various components of the Council of Europe itself.

Sweden was among the countries who responded first to such consultation with an in depth report on your government’s policies and vision of a multicultural society and the democratic management of cultural diversity. In responding both to our White Paper questionnaire and in hosting a consultation with members of Parliament and Ministries concerned back in 2007 on a first draft/outline of what would become the White Paper, Sweden manifested from the outset a clear interest in such process and its outcome.

The consultation at pan-European level showed: there was unanimity as to the fact that the universal norms provided the only secure foundation on which intercultural dialogue can take place. There was a clear recognition that a culture of tolerance has its limits, as manifested for instance in the context of ‘hate speech’. And there was consensus that gender equality was a sine qua non which no cultural ‘tradition’ could be allowed to trump.

[The concept of intercultural dialogue]

Interestingly, one of the clearest lessons was conceptual. The consultation with member states showed that the reason governments have found the events of recent years so challenging is that many had come to the conclusion that the two traditional approaches to addressing cultural diversity are no longer adequate.

The first of these is the notion that members of minority communities should assimilate to the dominant ethos of the state. This has proved increasingly difficult to sustain in ever-more diverse societies. Also, it does not sit easily with recent Council of Europe affirmations of the rights of persons belonging to minority communities, such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

The second notion, developed partly in response to these problems, is that of multiculturalism. It argued that the distinct ethos of minority communities should be politically recognised as being on an equal level with that of the “host” majority. But this also turned out to be problematic. It unintentionally led to a sacrifice of the rights of individuals—notably women—within communities. And it tended to reproduce communal stereotypes and lead to segregation and mutual incomprehension.

It is in this context that the new paradigm of intercultural dialogue has emerged. This has taken from assimilationthe emphasis on the universality of the citizen and his or her equality, allied to the exercise of impartial public authority. And it has taken from multiculturalisman appreciation of cultural diversity and its potential for cultural enrichment. Critically, however, the intercultural dialogue approach shifts the focus from the relationship between the individual or community and the state, to the necessity for dialogue across communal barriers. It is marked by a culture of broad-mindedness, which recognises the fluidity of identities, and the need for openness to change in a globalising context.

In a society based on this new paradigm, “differences of every kind are neither absolute nor exploited as means of stigmatising and excluding: rather, they are turned into account in order to open up areas for dialogue where the conflicts on socio-economic and political issues, thrown up by the changes stemming from globalisation, can be managed collectively”(Olivieri, p.35)

This approach focuses on a “change in our perception of others and our relationship with them: moving from the rhetoric of competition towards a more mutually supportive, cosmopolitan view, which replaces the struggle for what are imagined to be increasingly scarce resources by a much more co-operative attitude, one more geared to the building of alliances and aimed at a society that is more welcoming and more civil towards everyone […] This also presupposes that we do not regarding immigrants [or individuals and groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgroundsand heritage] as “targets” or “passive recipients” of our political initiatives, but rather that we allow them to become full partners in matters of more direct concern to them, and ultimately also in all societal questions. Basically the change required is to move away from a stereotypical image, which sees the interests of immigrants and those of nationals as essentially irreconcilable, instead of waking up and cultivating their profound inter-relationship”(Olivieri, p.52)

[Major messages of the White Paper]

As demanded by the member states in 2005, the White Paper, launched in May 2008, translated this concept into policy and practice. Allow me to highlight some of the major considerations.

  • The White Paper discusses the need for democratic governance of cultural diversity, marked by a culture of citizenship and participation which is essential if the outcomes are to be widely accepted as fair and legitimate.Such governance arrangements must be underpinned by an equality of life-chances and by the equal enjoyment of rights. Any form of discrimination or exclusion means intercultural dialogue does not take place between equals.
  • The White Paper argues that intercultural dialogue depends also on the capacity of individuals to engage in dialogue with others. Particular competences are needed if we are to engage in a real “dialogue”. These competences include familiarity with other languages; a basic understanding of the world religions; and an appreciation of the multiple perspectives on history.Intercultural education is critical if intercultural dialogue is to thrive.
  • The media also play a crucial role. They can fan the flames of insecurity and mistrust. Media organisations need themselves to reflect the diversity of the society they serve, for example in minority-programme broadcasting as well as in the make-up of their journalistic staff.
  • There are many more social locations where intercultural dialogue takes place, and many more organisations—including non-governmental organisations alongside governments and international bodies—which are responsible for its promotion. Indeed it is hard to think of any arena or social actor for which intercultural dialogue is not a relevant concern.

But how then to manage this complexity? Some governments have led the way in developing integration plans, seeking to ensure that the policies pursued by different departments are working to realise a common interculturalist goal.

Local authorities have also been pioneers. Many have established integration committees, or addressedthese issues at local level.

Non-governmental organisations have probably been the greatest source of innovation in good practice. Their advocacy role, the specific engagement of members of minority communities, their relatively small scale and flexibility all lend themselves to new initiatives.

But intercultural dialogue must take place on a global as well as local scale. The White Paper explores how the Council of Europe can work with its international partnerscommitted to the same values, to promote dialogue in Europe and beyond the continent.

[Examples of follow-up activities]

The White Paper on intercultural dialogue offers multiple answers to the questions with which governments have wrestled in recent years. Its conclusions and recommendations now need to be implemented, monitored and adapted. Intercultural dialogue is a “work in progress”.

If you already had a chance to browse through the White Paper, you will have seen that the document itself enumerates a number of follow-up activities. Many more have sprung up since.

In the remaining minutes of my presentation, allow me to give you an overview of six of these projects and programmes which I regard as particularly pertinent: an in-depth analytical report on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on issues relating to intercultural dialogue; the “Intercultural Cities” project; the “Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters”; the ongoing campaign against discrimination; the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; and educational and youth projects.

[The Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and Intercultural Dialogue]

Firstly, given the relevance of its case-law at pan-European level, the Council of Europe is preparing an in-depth review of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human rights pertaining to the European Convention of Human Rights’ articles dealing with issues relating to intercultural dialogue.The report describes, by presenting examples of the Court’s case-law, the legal methods for managing cultural diversity, the conditions of intercultural dialogue, the various spheres and actors of intercultural dialogue as well as the different levels of intercultural dialogue in the Court’s jurisprudence –thus contributing to the promotion of a harmonised common European standards in human rights protection enabling the recognition of legitimate cultural diversity.

In this context, the Council of Europe has launched two manuals on hate speech and wearing religious symbols in public areas in order to promote a better understanding of these two issues, which have serious implications for the protection of human rights.The manuals aim to clarify both concepts, which have caused intense controversy in Europe in the last years, and to guide policy makers, experts and other mainly through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

When dealing with the issues of the wearing of religious symbols in public areas, the Court points out that states enjoy a broad margin of discretion when regulating the wearing of religious symbols. However it also underlines that they must also ensure that individuals are able to enjoy the fullest possible freedom of religion or belief, with mutual respect for the rights of all being a key guiding principle.

The Manual on hate speech points out how it is sometimes difficult to reconcile the enjoyment of freedom of expression with other rights. However this freedom is not an absolute right, it is subject to certain limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights. The manual aims to differentiate expressions which, although being somehow insulting, are protected by the convention, from those which do not enjoy that protection.Most European countries have already adopted legislation forbidding expressions of hate speech, which may include forms of expression that disseminate, promote or justify hate based on racist, religious, aggressive nationalism, or homophobic intolerance.

[“Intercultural Cities”]

As a second example of the Council of Europe’s work in the field of intercultural dialogue, the “Intercultural Cities” programme has probably been one of the most ambitious and far-reaching actions launched during the “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue” of 2008. It aims at transforming the way in which cities regard and deal with cultural diversity.

Everywhere, immigration puts a strain on public services. Instead of complaining, however, many cities — among them the “Intercultural Cities” in our project — use the presence of newcomers as an opportunity to discuss and reform public services, to make them more user-oriented, responsive and efficient. These cities encourage active neighbourhood participation as a key to the management of cultural conflict. They seize and encourage cultural interaction as a chance to develop a new, modern identity. They anticipate potential cultural conflict zones and create mechanisms to manage them.

One such city is the Berlin district of Neukölln. A programme called “district mothers” (“Stadtteilmütter”) has trained 140 immigrant women to become home visitors promoting educational and health information, thereby creating a strong local integration network. Over 1.000 families have been reached in this way.

Perhaps the most important innovation concerns the way the city is managed, especially at the lowest level of territorial division. One lesson from the programmehas been that diversity is best managed at a street or neighbourhood level. Reggio Emilia in Italy is now experimenting with empowering residents – especially foreign residents without the right to vote – through the establishment of a “pact” between people in a neighbourhood and the city, with mutual obligations and rights, as well as resources for community events and development.

In Tilburg (Holland) some of the most remarkable initiatives involve the creation of a common campus between a Muslim and a Catholic school, and a joint house of religions between a Church and a Mosque.In Oslo, the “X-Ray Youth Culture House” and the “Nordic Black Theatre” are examples of new intercultural spaces where a new, hybrid Oslo youth culture is being forged. Young peopleinvolvedin these projects are now starting to make their mark on Norwegian society, through achieving positions in mainstream media and the arts worlds.

The “Intercultural Cities” programme is about helping cities to learn and build on each other’s good or best practice in different areas, and to develop comprehensive intercultural strategies in all main policy fields. In Lyon(France) for instance, a group of eight deputy mayors has been set up to this effect. Izhevskin the Russian Federationhas chosen to organise four thematic groups of professionals. Other cities are working through institutions dealing with integration, or a Vice-Mayor with a special responsibility.

[Promoting social inclusion and combating discrimination in and through education]

[Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters]

My fourth example is the “Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters”. Intercultural encounters are the experience of everyone. However, some encounters go unnoticed because they are so common and seem so natural. Others stick out as special, sometimes as demanding and difficult because they are unusual. Our emotions are often best understood through a little reflection and analysis.

This is the starting point of the “Autobiography” project. It helps us to think about our experiences of “other people”. The “Autobiography” is essentially a series of questions about a special, particularly important experience. They take us back over the encounter, over how we responded, how we think others in the encounter responded, how we thought and felt about it then and now, and what conclusions we can draw from it for the future. In the standard version, those who use the “Autobiography” can do it alone or with others, whereas the version for younger learners is intended for children who need help from an adult.The “Autobiography” is accompanied by notes for facilitators,and by a text on context, concepts and theories.